I need not know what some linguistic expression means in order for it to be meaningful. I cannot speak Swahili either, but it is meaningful.

Yeah actually. You do need to know that in order to assert it. Because there are far too many counter-examples which make your sweeping generalization that "all language is meaningful" obviously false.

If you don't speak Swahili then you do not know if a particular sentence is even IN Swahili, let alone assert if it's meaningful or not. The best you can do is ask a Swahili speaker IF a proposition is meaningful. This "testability" thing science insists on - you can't escape from it.

Language is an ever-evolving system, not a thing. It requires multiple components for it to work. One of those components is SHARED context/knowledge/experience/memory!

Without such a shared context/knowledge/experience/memory the INTERPRETATIVE portion of the system that is language does not work. You can't even understand what I am saying in (what you might suppose is) English! Technical jargon is perfect example.

Is Meoritic script meaningful?
Are the writings of the Harappan civilisation meaningful?
Will Shakespeare's writings still be meaningful to anybody 5000 years from now when all of its context and cultural relevance are long forgotten?

I need not know what some linguistic expression means in order for it to be meaningful. I cannot speak Swahili either, but it is meaningful.

Yeah actually. You do need to know that in order to assert it. Because there are far too many counter-examples which make your sweeping generalization that "all language is meaningful" obviously false.

Just one will do... yet you've not offered one.

Yes. Language is existentially contingent upon shared meaning. When all speakers die, then a necessary component is no longer there. So what? All this is irrelevant.

I need not know what all language use means in order to know that it is all meaningful. To argue otherwise is untenable... as it requires omniscience.

Nothing you've claimed is a problem for anything I've argued. Do you not see that?

You have no premise - so you have no argument.

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

That's not how logical arguments work...

I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

That's not how logical arguments work...

I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

That's not how logical arguments work...

I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.

Charming.

You do need to have a valid objection.

Correct. Your pre-suppositiong are trivially falsifiable as is your taxonomy.

All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.

That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.

Got one?

Yes. Computers are not creatures. Based on symbols (represented as bits - which are physical things) computers process information, make decisions and have a causal effect on reality. That is significant.

Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.

All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.

That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.

Got one?

Yes. Computers are not creatures. Based on symbols computers have causal effect on reality. That is significant.

Odd. You answer "yes" to the question of whether or not you have an example of meaning without something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two, and you've offered none.

Computers are not creatures. Therefore nothing is meaningful to the computer. It is meaningful to you and me. There's no exception here.